Comments on: Another sign of tight budgets ahead

By: Wine Togo

Wine Togo — Mon, 16 May 2011 07:48:03 +0000

Rather than randomly slash budgeting there what be open discussions on just what is wanted, no, needed from space exploration now.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Mon, 16 May 2011 00:49:35 +0000

“Itâ€™s been clear for some time that the budget environment for the next fiscal year (and beyond) will be constrained, given concerns about massive budget deficits and the nationâ€™s growing debt.”

All the more reason to end shuttle and disengage from past planning funding drains like the ISS ASAP and redirect dwindling resources away from LEO, which represents past planning and is a ticket to no place, into disciplined BEO HSF projects that show promise to move the human species out to a destination- and into the future over decades to come.

By: josh

josh — Sun, 15 May 2011 15:22:32 +0000

And another thing: Didn’t congress plan to give nasa 18 or 19 billion for SLS through 2016? Now nasa wants “just” 10 billion. maybe bolden is trying to prevent excessive waste (in a weird, twisted way)?

hope they find some flaw in the block 0 design that forces another review. and then another. before anything ever gets started. meanwhile commercial can proceed apace.

By: josh

josh — Sun, 15 May 2011 15:19:08 +0000

Not exactly on topic, but i had a thought on Falcon Heavy vs. SLS: It could very well happen that the payload capability of SLS drops during development (happened with Ares 1) while the payload of Falcon Heavy goes up further (Musk said 53 tons is the lower end). What if in the end they’re just like 10 tons apart? Falcon at 55 tons and SLS at 65. SLS would still be 25 times more expensive to launch (2.5 billion vs. 100 million). What an embarrassement for nasa and congress…

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Sat, 14 May 2011 06:17:12 +0000

Dave Huntsman wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 8:19 pm

“But I also know more than a couple very innovative and active folks at ULA who continue to fight the fight for the future.”

I hope ULA can figure out some way to stay competitive in the future. The best way to keep an industry innovative and keep prices in check is through competition, and right now ULA and SpaceX are the only two American providers of medium-heavy and heavy launchers, and two is the minimum number needed for competition.

By: Dave Huntsman

Dave Huntsman — Sat, 14 May 2011 00:19:23 +0000

I’m with Tom D. on this one: while EELV prices are too high, it results from several combined reasons; and hopefully decent competition from SpacEx (and hopefully others) will force them to change their business models to survive. But I also know more than a couple very innovative and active folks at ULA who continue to fight the fight for the future. So let’s not tar everyone with too broad a brush.

By: Tom D

Tom D — Fri, 13 May 2011 21:17:25 +0000

Why the lack of love for ULA? I wouldn’t count them out yet.

By: SpaceColonizer

SpaceColonizer — Fri, 13 May 2011 18:20:24 +0000

When dealing with a budget devouring zombie Constellation, always remember Zombieland’s Rule #2: DOUBLE TAP!!!

By: sftommy

sftommy — Fri, 13 May 2011 15:49:23 +0000

NASA can no longer afford ULA, nor afford to ignore SpaceX.

House appropriations committee might have to be the ones to curtail the space pork.